Law The Supreme Court overturns ruling which allows people to own bump stocks

[Rhood]

The Supreme Court struck down the ban on bump stocks in a 6-3 decision. All of the conservative justices joined the majority opinion, while the court's three liberals dissented. Bump stocks can be added to guns to allow for continuous firing with critics saying they essentially turn a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun.

The Trump administration implemented a ban on the sale or possession of bump stocks in 2018, after a gunman used the weapon in a mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 58 people and left hundreds of others injured. The policy received support from Democrats, as gun safety advocates viewed it as a common sense measure that could prevent future similar mass shootings.

The SCOTUS ruling drew criticism from Democrats and gun safety advocates.
"This is a horrible decision that will undoubtedly result in more gun deaths. The bump stock ban had bipartisan support following the deadliest mass shooting in US history. This ruling is another example of SCOTUS legislating from the bench, against the will of the people," posted Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat.

"Make no mistake: bump stocks are dangerous devices that can cause incredible harm. The shooter in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history in Las Vegas used a bump stock. This decision jeopardizes the safety of every community in this country," posted New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Republicans cheer Supreme Court ending Donald Trump policy

The High Court overturned a Trump-era regulation on bump stocks on Friday.

www.newsweek.com

Las Vegas shooting survivor rips Supreme Court’s bump-stock ruling: ‘It’s disgusting’

A bartender working on the night of the deadliest mass shooting in US history slammed the court’s decision

www.independent.co.uk

 

[lilelvis]

I hate to say it, brother… but you must be a moron.

<{cruzshake}>

 

[Other]

I hate to say it, brother… but you must be a moron.

<{cruzshake}>

It's dangerous when people talk outside their understanding. There's a word for this:

ultracrepidarian​

[ uhl-truh-krep-i-dair-ee-uhn ]

adjective​

1. noting or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside their area of expertise
   

 

[Lord_Impaler]

<{cruzshake}>

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Good

 

[BFoe]

Just as wrong as every other 2A decision they’ve made since 2008, but no surprise.

Edit: As much as I despise SCOTUS’s 2A decisions, I will walk this post back. From a statutory perspective, SCOTUS was correct. Congress needs to address this sadly.

 

[djacobox372]

The bump stock ban had bipartisan support following the deadliest mass shooting in US history. This ruling is another example of SCOTUS legislating from the bench, against the will of the people,"

It's not the SCOTUS job to act based on the will of the people, it's their job to interpret the constitution.

 

[Teppodama]

It's not the SCOTUS job to act based on the will of the people, it's their job to interpret the constitution.

People willfully ignore that fact.

 

[andnowweknow]

It's not the SCOTUS job to act based on the will of the people, it's their job to interpret the constitution.

Lol ... that's a pretty loose description of what the current court is doing.

 

[andnowweknow]

People willfully ignore that fact.

Not as blatantly as these justices ignore precedent.

 

[Whippy McGee]

This is not a popularity contest. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution to ban a bump stock or anything eluding to it. If we actually dig into the Federalist Papers and the 2nd Amendment, the intent is that Americans have access to the same standard issue firearms as the infantryman and we do not have that. When I hear a Left Cult Clown whine about it... I just see an ignorant and/or un-American fool.

Note... a bump stock gets you nowhere near the automatic capabilities of our military. I wouldn't recommend one, but I wouldn't dog someone that wanted one.

 

[K-Bag]

America gonna America.

 

[Teppodama]

Not as blatantly as these justices ignore precedent.

Because a decision on a similar situation was made in the past does not mean that decision cannot be reevaluated for constitutional legality. A precedent is simply a guideline and does not guarantee the original decision was correct regardless of how often it might be cited.

 

[Belaya Smert]

Trump got it wrong guys
ATF got it wrong for like the third time even though they are the ones defining law that carries a criminal penalty. That’s not legal for an administrative agency to do. And they (at() have done so repeatedly and ignored the courts in the process. If you pay attention you should be pissed as a few American.
The majority seem to not care about individual rights and liberties; when we as a society have reached a time. It couldn’t be more imperative we voice our discontent with the continued assault on liberty.

Vote Accordingly

 

[HereticBD]

Textbook ultracrepidarian thread.

 

[NickNick]

Bump stocks =/= machine guns

 

[oldshadow]

Not as blatantly as these justices ignore precedent.

WTF are you talking about they don't base their decisions on precedent they set the precedent as per the constitution.

 

[DoctorNick]

WTF are you talking about they don't base their decisions on precedent they set the precedent as per the constitution.

Everyone here knows you're an old fool. If you're actually serious, I'm glad people who think like you are gone from leadership positions in the next 15-20 years. If you think for a second that Thomas should still be on the SC, you're a traitor to what this country is really about.

 

[nonoob]

Ignorant AF thread - machine guns are not involved.​

I hate to say it, brother… but you must be a moron.

If it walks like a duck...you hit it right on this moronic thread.​

 

[Cherry Brigand]

@Rhood are you actually this stupid?